babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

How far will the Wildrose Alliance rise?

The WAP picked up Calgary-Glenmore last night, a seat that they had previously struggled to win 10% in. Will the WAP be a Western Canada Concept style flash in the pan, or can they give the Alberta PC's an elbow in the teeth from the right?

I don't see them sweeping to power in the next election or anything, but I wouldn't be shocked if them leapfrogged the NDP and Liberals and made official opposition.

Comments

The WRAlliance has the potential to make long term gains. By winning an urban riding and seemingly about to elect a highly articulate, well respected woman ( http://www.daniellesmith.ca/ ) as leader they are shaking off a lot of negative stereotypes people had about them. If the rumours prove true and Guy Boutilier joins the WRAlliance “caucus” it would provide additional momentum. Guy’s presence would not only lend legitimacy, but would increase the sense that the WRAlliance is the “heir apparent” for voters who value fiscal conservatism and limited Government interference in peoples’ private lives. Also, they would then have the same number of MLAs as the NDP. (I have also heard rumours that another 4 - 8 rural southern MLAs might make the move to WRA if Danielle wins and if Guy joins first; but I would not hold my breath for that to happen. However, 10 MLAs would make them the Official Opposition.)

As to the question that is the title of the thread "How far will the Wildrose Alliance rise?" Well the answer is obvious, they will rise in the water column till they come into contact with the air. Much like pond scum or soap scum, these guys float.

Yes, very partisan, bad me... but I got breathe the same air as they do, criticize me when you are breathing it too.

Could you sort of describe the WRAlliance for this Ontarian? Religion. Environmental position. Pure Libertarian? Completely insular?

.

Do you remember the Reform party? Same folks, provincial in focus rather than federal.

The WRAlliance are fiscal conservatives and prairie populists (an amalgam of social conservatives and social libertarians, trusting in the "common sense of the common people"). The Old Reform Party tended to draw disproportionately from The Greatest Generation and Gen X for its active volunteers and regular donors. Similarly the WRAlliance seems to draw very heavily from Gen X, but is now broadening their appeal to other demographics with the Royalty Review and economic downturn. [I noticed in this bi-election that the PC volunteers usually seemed to be in their 60s, the Liberals well-heeled 50somethings (I would say "Yuppies" but they are not so young anymore), and most WRAPers were Gen X. I am not sure if that represents an overall trend or not.]

I am not sure how they will fare in the long run. One newsworthy item is that Guy Boutillier is meeting with them. He is currently sitting as an independent due to his criticism of the Cons regarding cancellation of a nursing home project in his riding. He is hugely popular in the Wood Buffalo region. If he changed parties, it would be a major coup for the WRA and could open the floodgates...

I could honestly see some huge right wing vote splitting out of this leading to a minority government of some sort... or even a WRA majority in time. I suppose time will tell.

Does the WRA support the kind of budget maintenance that would allow gov't to build that nursing home? Long-term care institutions are sort of a watershed, here, for the Cons who dropped the requirements of care per person in LTC institutions, back in the 90s, to allow the incursions of private care companies who can make a buck from the aged and infirm if care requirements are not too stringent.

How does this guy, Guy Boutillier relate to the privatization of care...or is that already a going concern in Wild Rose country? I see it as the template for what to expect in their variance from Cons...the canary.

Add on a few more disenchanted Tory votes, and the Wildrose party will take the next election or two in a landslide. 4 more decades of dinosaur rule.

Meanwhile, in support of that, at this weekend's convention in Edmonton, the Alberta NDP struck down a entirely reasonable and logical resolution supported by the intellectual/academic backbone of the party asking the ND to run selected candidates, along with the Liberals and Greens, in the next election (coalition non-compete strategy). The most oft-quoted reason for nixing the idea was "We need to offer our members the democratic right to vote for our party in ALL ridings."

What twisted logic. In a province where 47% of the opposition vote in Alberta only hold 13% of the seats, we don't live in a true democracy, regardless, so any "democracy" the NDP thinks its maintaining by holding onto this view is specious. Instead of looking at the bigger picture whereby the public good interest (to elect a coalition that could institute Proportional Representation, after which every party could return to business as usual) needs to take precedence over the individual (the right to vote for the NDP in every riding), party stalwarts stuck to their guns.

Opposing the pro-cooperation resolution, Brian Mason apparently cried at the mic, asking members "not to split" his party. I'd like to ask Mr. Mason how he thinks those of us who are exhausted by nearly 40 years of right wing rule feel about him "splitting the progressive centrist/left" in the province. His lone MLA sidekick, Rachel Notley, spoke at the mic, too, apparently clueless about how coalitions work.

Soon, the NDP in Alberta will ride into the sunset along with the dinosaurs... I think I need to resign. I can't stand watching the party commit hari-kari.

"How does this guy, Guy Boutillier relate to the privatization of care...or is that already a going concern in Wild Rose country? I see it as the template for what to expect in their variance from Cons...the canary."

At lunch, someone said they heard that Alberta is privatizing all senior Long Term Care in Alberta. Anything to that?

Yeah, those darn ANDP members, so ignorant as to disagree with you and the intellectual/academic backbone of the party. Perhaps you should consider dropping in on Dr. Swann and the Tory-lites, since you seem to think they are part off some "centre-left" movement. Attend a couple of their conventions, get a feel for them.

... Two legislature members from Alberta's governing Progressive Conservatives are crossing the floor to the fledgling Wildrose Alliance, says a political commentator, who warns they may be just the first to change parties. ...

Nothing to distinguish yourself from the current corrupt regime like having two of its foot soldiers (well, one is a former cabinet minister, so maybe a commissioned officer) desert to you... heaven forbid you have them actually seek a nomination and contest a byelection or election under your banner. WRA/PC... different outhouses, same smell.

Say outwest, how 'bout a "coalition non-compete strategy" for the federal opposition?...nah!...they don't really care if Harper wins the next election...as long as each party thinks it will be the Official Opposition.

Nice to see the potential for the right-wing vote getting split for a change. WRA should be encouraged to go federal - they could poach those hard-right cons becoming increasingly disenchanted with Harper's (albeit fake) move towards the centre.

The hottest provincial scene in Canada these days is Alberta where the populist wave that has lifted the Wildrose Alliance Party to the top of the polls is demonstrating that still waters can truly be deceiving.

The advent of a right-wing challenger to Canada's longest serving dynasty is more than just a political junkie's once-in-a-lifetime dream come true.

It is also a game changer that already quietly resonates within Stephen Harper's government and that is about to impact loudly on the federal-provincial scene.

Old habits die hard. After half a century of keeping watch on the Quebec front, many Parliament Hill insiders can't seem to peel their eyes off that province. And yet the fact is that over the past two decades the epicentre of Canada's federal politics has relocated in Alberta.

And isn't this how it works in Alberta? It isn't so much as a "new political party" as a rebranding of the old. The populist aspect will give way to slightly less nutso influences of the deffectors over time, and in ten years you wind up with a party that looks like Stelmach's or the last So Cred government.

Add on a few more disenchanted Tory votes, and the Wildrose party will take the next election or two in a landslide. 4 more decades of dinosaur rule.

Meanwhile, in support of that, at this weekend's convention in Edmonton, the Alberta NDP struck down a entirely reasonable and logical resolution supported by the intellectual/academic backbone of the party asking the ND to run selected candidates, along with the Liberals and Greens, in the next election (coalition non-compete strategy). The most oft-quoted reason for nixing the idea was "We need to offer our members the democratic right to vote for our party in ALL ridings."

What twisted logic. In a province where 47% of the opposition vote in Alberta only hold 13% of the seats, we don't live in a true democracy, regardless, so any "democracy" the NDP thinks its maintaining by holding onto this view is specious. Instead of looking at the bigger picture whereby the public good interest (to elect a coalition that could institute Proportional Representation, after which every party could return to business as usual) needs to take precedence over the individual (the right to vote for the NDP in every riding), party stalwarts stuck to their guns.

Opposing the pro-cooperation resolution, Brian Mason apparently cried at the mic, asking members "not to split" his party. I'd like to ask Mr. Mason how he thinks those of us who are exhausted by nearly 40 years of right wing rule feel about him "splitting the progressive centrist/left" in the province. His lone MLA sidekick, Rachel Notley, spoke at the mic, too, apparently clueless about how coalitions work.

Soon, the NDP in Alberta will ride into the sunset along with the dinosaurs... I think I need to resign. I can't stand watching the party commit hari-kari.

Is there a reason that you think the Liberals could be trusted to implement PR in such a "coalition"?

Or to be able to get "their" voters to vote NDP in the pitiful handful of ridings the NDP would stand in?

And why do you think the arrnagement you describe would mean anything other than the Liberals demanding that the NDP reduce itself to "knowing their place" and voting Liberal in most of the province, without any policy concessions from Liberal candidates in exchange for the extra votes?

And why would you ever expect the NDP to agree to such a surrender accord, since the NDP would never be able to go back to nominating a full slate of candidates after only running a handful in a "coalition" arrangement?

The lifeblood of the party is disaffected Calgarians. They have been mightily pissed since Stelmach was elected as leader, and the two Calgary candidates (Jim Dinning and Ted Morton) were not. Then Farmer Ed had the temerity to oblige the oilpatch to pay more in royalties, so the WRTA is their reaction.

But Ed is not without brain cells, since he has now promoted Morton and he is more or less out of contention with the WRA. And.... the royalty regime is under another review, guaranteeing that some of that cash will soon be flowing back up the pipeline into the industrys pockets.

I know the WRA has caused some serious wood in some quarters, but it ain't going far.

Just heard Michael Enright interviewing Danielle Smith on his "cross Canada train" program this morning.

The WRA leader is very sharp, very personable, and must be completely mesmerizing for audiences that don't ask her the pithy questions, allow her to generalize and speak admiringly about entreprenurial advantages in low-tax Alberta (but please, please, don't identify her as spokesperson for the Tar Patch. Please).

Looking at the pack mentality in Alberta's political history I wouldn't be surprised if the the Wildrose Alliance won a majority government. In any other province the more likely result would be splitting the right wing vote in such a way that the Liberals form at least a minority government.

One important difference - Environics polled 'likely voters' as opposed to everyone. About 60% of Albertans didn't cast a ballot in the last election. The idea of polling likely voters seems logical to me, but I'm not convinced pollsters have figured out a good way to truthfully figure out which voters are in fact, likely to cast ballots.

I might be grasping at straws, but it's worth noting that traditionally, the NDP and Liberals poll worse between elections in Alberta than they do on election day.

Between 2004-2008, the NDP was regularly polling at between 5-7%, and the Liberals were polling between 18-25%. In the end, the NDP recieved 8.5%, and the Liberals 26%. (During the election period itself, the polling numbers for both parties improved).

The two polls above show status quo for the Liberals, and modest improvement for the NDP. Both parties should be able to capitalize on the split in the Conservative vote to gain a few seats.